No, I was refering to a "form" of religion. Which in this case is Islamic governments. Syria, Saudia Arabia, The Taliban, Iran, and to en extent Iraq in that Saddam played himself off as an Islamic Saviour, all are extremist islamic governments. All of them treat women as nothing more than property. It is simply perverting a religion to oppress others (I'm sure you'll all have something to say here about christianity and the US, start another thread and we can discuss this there.)

Yes, the Quran, to my understanding, does not truely promote any of this. And I have no issue with Islam as a religion. But the fact remains that a large number of the "teachers of islam" teach nothing but hate of the US. I am not broadly stamping all islamic believers as evil. Just pointing out the fact that a large portion of the leaders are corrupted and using Islam as a way to gain personal power and control.

...how Iraq was threatening your way of life.

We have to go back a little bit of the way here to understand this. The reason that Osama hates america is because he had a plan to defend Saudia Arabia from Iraq in 90 - 91. The Saudi government rejected this and instead allowed the US to move in troops to protect them. This is not a good thing for islam. Saudi Arabia is the home of Mecca and is therefor holy ground and not to be walked on by non-islamic believers. This in a nutshell is the reasoning that Osama uses for claiming that the US must be destroyed, because we desacrated islamic holy ground.

Ok, moving on. We did not finish the job in Iraq because many of the islamic nations that assisted us did not want the US occupying Iraq. So we backed off and allowed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to die in the ensuing uprising. This continued. As well as Saddam more or less thumbing his nose at the UN and their resolutions. More died from starvation due to lack of funds caused by Saddam's lack of cooperation with the UN and the ensuing sanctions. What money that did get in was used to rebuild Iraqs military. A military with one goal, to take over the middle east oil fields. To do this he would have to face the american military. How long do you think it would have taken for him to realize that after 9/11, small unit tactics used by terrorists could achive such results and that he to should be using them? So now we have a military power with sufficant funds looking to strike at the US and a group of willing soliders under Osama looking for funds and arms to execute such a strike. Do I have to draw you a picture????

The only thing I can see that was potentially threatening the American way of life was a future oil shortage and those resources being in the hands of an uncooperative Saddam.

Do you realize what would happen to the world economy, not just the US but the whole world, if the US faced such an oil shortage? And thats just the US facing a shortage. Saddam would more than likely restrict its flow to other countries as well quickening the decline.

Then you would have to cut back on your truly outrageous (as a nation) levels of energy consumption.

The most populated high tech nation in the world uses energy??? Heavens No!!! What are we going to do? I know we'll go back to living in huts and breaking our backs to survive. Of course this means no more grain exports (Hello world starvation). And since we'll be working just to make ends meet over here you can kiss the far east export economy good bye.
Oh and those steel tariffs... not to worry we won't need them. In fact we won't need to import any steel cause we'll have no plants to use it in.

I don't see how raising questions helps the terrorists. Do you think that if suddenly everyone shut up disagreeing with the Bush administration, that Osama would suddenly go 'OK, well, that's that - there just isn't any point anymore boys. Let's give up.'

I venture to say that the reason you do not understand is because what you have been taught is cause and effect and not the complexities and relationships inherent in large systems. Its like Conway's Game of Life, a few very simple rules can be combined to create highly complex systems that are quite difficult to understand.

But heres a stab at an explination. By constantly screaming "down with bush!", "get out of Iraq!" and the rest you are allowing the enemy to rationalize that they are somehow winning or capable of winning. This allows them to go to others and impress apon them the same values and turn them against freedom and liberty. By providing a united front you make it much more likely that the new recuit will see the futility of his actions and thus not act at all.

Take the steel tariffs. Is that fair? My government stood beside yours but now your government slaps on a steel tariff that is helping to cripple our economy.

Interesting question! So is it fair for Japan and the EU to demand a fair opening to our steel market while restricting say Boeing from selling airliners to EU countries. I do not agree with the steel tariffs either. If you can't compete in a free market deserve to go under. EU and Japan steel is cheaper. Can't blame the guy buyin steel for that. Nor should you force him to pay more. But once again we are only looking at half the problem. These same countries that demand openings into our market want to restrict the US in there markets. Is that fair?

Citizens of my country have been held as prisoners in Guantanamo bay for 2 years and the USA is only just beginning to even discuss this as an issue. there is no discernable evidence against at least 2 of them.

This goes to the patriot act, and I've stated before that I'm against it. We can stand together at the gates of the white house and protest this.

I'd like you to name the countries you've visited outside the US.

Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, Haiti and Japan. Mexico Jamaica and Haiti were all missions trips with my church when I was a teenager helping to build churches and schools. I plan on making it to England someday as I am half scotish and have relatives there.

I have to roll right now... I'll try to answer the rest later.

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

First off, don't take the cause and effect comment personally... I realize it was a bit harsh as its written. It wasn't a personal comment so much as a comentary on how people are taught in both high school and college.

whether or not there were WMDs is still a grey area.

Saddam has a consistant track record of attempting to obtain and actually obtaining WMD components. Here's a scary thought, maybe these WMD have already been smuggled out and are now holed up in a safe place waiting to be used. Either way we are now in a position start to gain control the arms traffic within Iraq. The grey area was in the caused by Saddam not allowing the UN inspectors to do their job. Its much less grey now in my opinion.

Whether or not the coalition could effectively manage the aftermath of a war it would definitely win.

Thats the thing, americans are a strange bunch we actually believe we can do anything we put our minds to. And the funning thing is that we have a strikingly high rate of actually doing it.

Whether a war would even achieve a reduction in international terrorism.

We've removed two extremist governments from the area of the world where the majority of these terrorist operations are hatched. We've sent a very serious message to those governments that any type of support for these operations will result in their destruction as well.

Whether there was enough money in the coffers to do this.

Heres the thing, american occupations have almost always resulted in a economic boom. Americans love to invest in new markets and when they do it causes money to move and wealth to be created. That economic activity is taxed. So that brings up the question: was this all a plan to make bush's friends rich, which I've heard around here? If they get rich they get taxed.

whether it is right to enforce upon the middle east a US-led 'let's change this area into how we want it to be'. Have you heard of cultural imperialism?

So instead you rather have people like Saddam running the country you live in. Or maybe you'd like to face the chance of having you girlfriend/wife shot in the head before a soccer game because theylooked at another man. Fact remains that we are not trying to run the country, we are setting it up so that the Iraqis can rule themselves. The same thing we did in Germany and Japan. Or did we destroy their culture too?

here you go again with the preservation of your way of life.

Yup. And the here we are with you trying to make me feel bad because I was born in the US and worked my ass off to make my life what it is.

Your statement is rooted in arrogance which assumes that your country is better than any other.

Not arrogance, its Pride! Here's the thing, what you are doing is trying rationalize that Saddam is some how better than the US.

Will everyting be perfect? No. But you would have us not even try and rid ourselves of these destructive people. I do not believe that this is the way that we will improve the human race.

Actually lots of it has to do with a rich array of natural resources...

So now we were given everything on a silver spoon and we should be punished for that? Sounds kinda like: from each according to their ablity, to each according to their need. And we all know how well that worked out.

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

Yes Hussein being in power was dangerous especially for the people of Iraq but it is irresponsible and naive to ignore/deny the fact that it is also very dangerous to endorse a system that would have a country unilaterally invade another sovereign state, perform a 'regime change' and place its people under martial law. Particularly given that the official reasoning for the invasion is based on suspicion and questionable 'facts' (I'm aware that opponents of the Iraq War have harped on the fact that the WMDs now appear imaginary and the intelligence has been compromised but no more so than the proponents of the Iraq War harped on the certain existence of the WMDs before the war, at least the opponents have reality on their side) that only become weaker as time goes by. In this specific case there were many good reasons to intervene in some form in Iraq, though these reasons were rarely mentioned at the time or even now by those in power, perhaps because they don't wish to be expected to interfere elsewhere where human rights atrocities are a daily reality. And now the US is in a position in which it could invade a number of other sovereign states with little reason given and without much to be done to prevent it from doing so. An essential benefit of having such decisions made by an international body like the UN is that it puts the power in the hands of many rather than in the hands of few. It is an important safeguard, checks and balances to help prevent violent world domination.

WMD's, WMD's, WMD's??? Where are they??? Thats all I hear. I have yet to hear any explination for why Saddam would or did change from his past policy of military domination of the middle east? I've yet to hear what humanitarian purpose he had for building a reactor in the second most oil rich nation in the world? Why he had scientist create a new refinement method to further refine material that was already quite suitable for use in said reactor?

No explination of why he gassed people from his own country? Oh thats right it was the Iranians that did it. They moved 100 miles into Iraq, 5 years after the war was over and gassed them and then ran home, is that right? And the right wing media empires of CNN and ABC are helping to cover this fact up, right?

No explination as to why he was building a super gun that was capable of reaching Isreal until the head scientist was assasinated?

No explination as to why he was building missles with ranges that exceeded defensive limits and were very much an offensive weapon?

And lastly I've heard no one tell me how leaving Saddam in power would promote peace and justice in the world?

It is an important safeguard, checks and balances to help prevent violent world domination.

I have one last question on this one too. Can you explain the checks and balances that the UN has in place to make sure everything they do truely promotes freedom and liberty? What exactly is the UN doing to improve the treatment of women under Islamic Law? What policies are they using to stop the murder of chinese people who do not believe in communism?

Sorry I guess thats more than one last question... But thats the thing, There are just so many questions when it comes to the UN. Unless of course you just want to blindly follow.

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

mglenn wrote:Which in this case is Islamic governments. Syria, Saudia Arabia, The Taliban, Iran, and to en extent Iraq in that Saddam played himself off as an Islamic Saviour, all are extremist islamic governments.

OK, I agree with you. Extremist religious governments aren't good for anybody. It just sounded like you were saying that Islam was bad, not just those governments who try to use it to supress their people.

mglenn wrote:

...how Iraq was threatening your way of life.

A military with one goal, to take over the middle east oil fields. To do this he would have to face the american military. How long do you think it would have taken for him to realize that after 9/11, small unit tactics used by terrorists could achive such results and that he to should be using them? So now we have a military power with sufficant funds looking to strike at the US and a group of willing soliders under Osama looking for funds and arms to execute such a strike. Do I have to draw you a picture????

even your own president has admitted that there is absolutely no evidence linking saddam to Osama.
But like I've said before countless times, if I could find enough empirical evidence to satisfy me that this sort of cohesion between Osama and Saddam was going on, and that they were a viable and immediate threat to my country, and that war was the only solution to this, then I would have backed the war. But I still don't see those facts. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

mglenn wrote:
Do you realize what would happen to the world economy, not just the US but the whole world, if the US faced such an oil shortage? And thats just the US facing a shortage. Saddam would more than likely restrict its flow to other countries as well quickening the decline.

yes, I agree. It would be a disaster. But the fact is that everyone keeps screaming about how this is not a war for oil. It's looking from your answer as though it is. I was told by my government that this was a war to find WMDs. NOT to free the iraqi people, or to ensure oil was available for the rest of the world. It appears I have been lied to. Specific denials of the fact that this was about oil are ten-a-penny.

mglenn wrote:
I know we'll go back to living in huts and breaking our backs to survive. Of course this means no more grain exports (Hello world starvation). And since we'll be working just to make ends meet over here you can kiss the far east export economy good bye.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Look, the USA has the highest per capita expenditure of energy in the world. While some of that has to do with being an industrialised, western nation (of course), I have been to the USA something like between 15 and 20 times, and I have never ever witnessed such flagrant consumption of energy for reasons that are purely comfort.
I'll give a few examples.
- Air conditioning cranked up so high that shops are actually COLD. There's just no need.
- my own relatives going out for the day and leaving the aircon running, the lights on, the windows open, AND the radio playing ALL DAY while they aren't even there, so that it's on already when they get home and they don't have to walk the 20 feet to put it on.
- your public transport sucks so you drive everywhere.
- not only that but you do it in vastly uneconomical cars (SUVs for example) which get maybe 12 miles to the gallon.
- using 19 napkins when one will do.

I'm not kidding, these things are commonplace in the US and those are just the examples I thought of in 10 seconds. It just doesn't happen to the same degree in other countries.

mglenn wrote:
I venture to say that the reason you do not understand is because what you have been taught is cause and effect and not the complexities and relationships inherent in large systems.

you're right, that sounds insulting. It sounds like you're questioning my intelligence and let me tell you I didn't get where I am today by being stupid.
But I have read your second post and I'll take that in the way it was intended.
For your info, I'm legally educated and so I probably have more of a tendency than most to look at cause and effect. But the legal system is large, complicated, and has a unique relationship to society. don't tell me I don't understand the intricacies of life.

mglenn wrote:By providing a united front you make it much more likely that the new recuit will see the futility of his actions and thus not act at all.

OK, I can sort of see your point. but are you saying we shouldn't question things in case we're not providing a united front? I can't live in that society. In fact, given what you've said, I'm confused. Aren't your soldiers currently fighting for the freedom of the iraqi people to have the right to question their own government? (your words not mine) In which case, it's fine for them to and we'll die for their right, but I'm not allowed to question the US administration??? Now I'm really confused.

mglenn wrote:These same countries that demand openings into our market want to restrict the US in there markets. Is that fair?

no, it's not. I believe in free trade and I agree with you. But it surely sticks in the throat of your administration to slap steel tarifs on the nation who has stood by them most (I'm talking the government here not necessarily the people).

mglenn wrote:
Canada, Mexico, Jamaica, Haiti and Japan.

well, I really really think you should make an effort to visit europe. You'll note that I've been to your country something like 15-20 times and while I admit that this (or the fact that my entire family is american) doesn't make me an expert on the USA, it does mean that I have at least garnered my viewpoints with more experience. You've never even been anywhere near mine and yet you criticise and judge other nations as being below yours.
For the record, this is my list:
the USA (numerous times, to numerous states), germany, france, belgium, switzerland, hungary (we almost made it to romania too but got stopped by border control - darn), spain, italy, barbados, ireland, northern ireland, poland, cyprus.

mglenn wrote:Here's a scary thought, maybe these WMD have already been smuggled out and are now holed up in a safe place waiting to be used.

well, that's true. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Osama popped up tomorrow in Washington DC having been living there for the last 2 years...

mglenn wrote:We've removed two extremist governments from the area of the world where the majority of these terrorist operations are hatched. We've sent a very serious message to those governments that any type of support for these operations will result in their destruction as well.

but the level of non-governmental terrorism has increased. London is currently sitting at a much higher risk than it ever has been (and let's not forget 30 years of IRA terror). We don't risk being bombed by Saddam (and I question whether we ever were at risk from this) but we certainly now risk suicide bombings, chemical attacks on the tube, etc etc by small cells or individuals. That risk is undeniably higher than it was prior to this 'war on terror'. Frankly I am more scared now than I have ever been. I think about it briefly every night I get on the tube to go home, and every morning when I get up and kiss Mr. S goodbye to his job in the hub of the 4th most at-risk city in the world.

mglenn wrote:was this all a plan to make bush's friends rich, which I've heard around here? If they get rich they get taxed.

So??? Unless you're going to tax at 100% of the profits made from Iraq, they are still better off than they were before. Some small amount might possibly be diverted to the American people in the form of increased tax revenue, but that should easily be used up by the $87 billion it is costing to fund this war in the first place. I'm not an economist, but even I can see that even if they are taxed, they are still better off than they were before. And the tax they pay will go to funding the war to make them rich. looks like a big circle to me.

mglenn wrote:And the here we are with you trying to make me feel bad because I was born in the US and worked my ass off to make my life what it is.

no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I even stated that I admired the American people's propensity for hard work. I'm saying that I don't think Saddam was a threat to your way of life.

mglenn wrote:Not arrogance, its Pride! Here's the thing, what you are doing is trying rationalize that Saddam is some how better than the US.

maybe. But it sure does come across as arrogant. Pride would be saying 'gee, we did that well. Pat on the back boys for a job well done.'
arrogance is saying 'boy we did that really well. aren't we so much better than everybody else. Our nation rocks. And anybody that does anything differently just doesn't know what they're doing and are obviously substandard. we're the best.' That's what American patriotism sounds like to the rest of the world.
Here is a basic fact. I don't want to become american. I hope my society never ever ever becomes the same as yours. I value my country in the same way you do and I take offence at the implication (which I have not just heard from you but from many, so this isn't a personal attack) that we live in a substandard society because we don't do things the American way.

mglenn wrote:
So now we were given everything on a silver spoon and we should be punished for that?

no, you misunderstand me. You held your nation out to be the richest and most powerful because it's people were obviously doing something right. I'm saying that it's not just down to the work ethic of your nation but also to the fact that you have a country rich in natural resources. I'm not taking anything away from the hardworking american nation (quite the opposite) just saying that that isn't the only factor in the equation, which you made it sound like it was.

thank god for Grim.
I was beginning to think that this was turning into the mglenn&starbug show.
I was actually thinking the other day that I'm probably (maybe with the exception of Lance) the most left-wing-ish person on here. Mike's probably the most to the right... it would be nice to have someone who could kind of stroke the middle ground occasionally and see if we can actually come to a more moderate agreement on stuff

I don't think blindly following anyone is a good solution, that's one of the reasons it's always good to question and examine things even while lives hang in the balance. Sadly sometimes it is best not to act right away, even to save lives, as rash action not fully considered could lead to further tragedy and injustice rather than a solution. I admittedly do not have the answers for many of your questions (I'll try again tonight after work, especially for your last question, perhaps my mind will be sharper then). But I do have a question (or few) that if answered will help me understand the general situation much better. There has been a lot of talk about countries having weapons and reactors that they shouldn't have. On what basis is it decided which countries are allowed to possess such things and which are not? And who gets to decide? I get that Iraq was not supposed to have such weapons because of the sanctions and limitations agreed to and placed on them after the previous Gulf war, but in general how are such decisions made?

Again I think the reason there has been so much talk about the WMDs not materializing is because there was so much talk previous to the invasion about the WMDs. And the reason the opponents of the war don't justify some of the other things you mention such as the gassing of Hussein's own people is that oppenents of the war don't believe these things are justified. The reality is that immediate US invasion of Iraq was not the only alternative to eternal inaction. Many would have liked to see these problems dealt with in a way that would have helped the Iraqi people without leaving the door so wide open for any Powerful country to employ a 'might is right' stance and steamroll unilaterally through other sovereign states.

mglenn wrote:
I plan on making it to England someday as I am half scotish and have relatives there.

if you do, look me up seriously, I'd love to show you around london.

And I really hope you won't take this offensively but I have to have a little laugh at your statement...
This is something I hear from americans all the time and it does make me smile...
My parents are both american but I wouldn't ever call myself american, or even half-american. I am british. I was born here, I have lived here all my life. That makes me british.

but I can't tell you how weird it is to hear a woman (and I kid you not, this happened) telling me how she was really british (in a distinct chicago twang), because back in the 1850s one of her relatives was called 'Mr. Downing' and Downing Road, where the Prime Minister lives in London (you have no idea how I laughed - it's Downing Street!!) was named after him. To someone who is actually British it's sort of insulting, for some reason. I mean, I konw she was trying to be nice and find common ground between us but it really had almost the opposite effect.

Anyway, sorry, that was an aside but your statement really reminded me of it so I sat here at my desk laughing.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Look, the USA has the highest per capita expenditure of energy in the world. While some of that has to do with being an industrialised, western nation (of course), I have been to the USA something like between 15 and 20 times, and I have never ever witnessed such flagrant consumption of energy for reasons that are purely comfort.
I'll give a few examples.
- Air conditioning cranked up so high that shops are actually COLD. There's just no need.
- my own relatives going out for the day and leaving the aircon running, the lights on, the windows open, AND the radio playing ALL DAY while they aren't even there, so that it's on already when they get home and they don't have to walk the 20 feet to put it on.
- your public transport sucks so you drive everywhere.
- not only that but you do it in vastly uneconomical cars (SUVs for example) which get maybe 12 miles to the gallon.
- using 19 napkins when one will do.

This isn't always entirely true.

For the airconditioning: Yes some stores keep it entirely too low I often complain about it and ask them to turn it up. BUT, I live in Texas and if we were to leave our house all day without any airconditioning during late July/August when it is 100 to 110 degrees F (we have a programmable one that turns on and off to maintain a specific temperature) it would actually waste more money because of how much energy it would take to cool the house back down when we got home. Just ask my dad who has tinkered with both the heating and airconditioning so that he has the smallest possible bill each month.

As for public transportion, it does suck and most of us don't like it. Back home in Arlington, Texas (yes the city were Bush's old baseball team call home) the citizens caused a vote to approve public transportation, but each time the city leaders would turn it down. All we wanted was Dallas or Fort Worth's Bus system to expand there service to us like they have to many other suburbs. On another note, if we ever get good transportation in Dallas I will probably be one of the first people using it, because I hate it when it takes me 2 hours to drive 30 miles down the road. Especially if you compare it to the 20 minutes it would take me if I had to do it a 10 p.m.

As for the lights and T.V in my family, you would get in trouble from my dad for leaving lights and TV on in a room you weren't in.

I think you representation of people is of small population of Americans and I hope that you discussed this with your relatives and had an impact on their habits.

starbug wrote:I was actually thinking the other day that I'm probably (maybe with the exception of Lance) the most left-wing-ish person on here.

Eh, a lot of us are very left-wing here. I know I am personally pretty damn left in my views. I am just not very vocal about it on here. The only thing I barely agree with the right on (and it isn't necessarily agreement more of a disagreement with a lot of the left in this country) is gun control. That of course is a whole 'nother thread.

mglenn would probably either run in terror or just shake his head and sob at some of my views and ideas of what this administration has done to further their own goals and bank accounts.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Look, the USA has the highest per capita expenditure of energy in the world. While some of that has to do with being an industrialised, western nation (of course), I have been to the USA something like between 15 and 20 times, and I have never ever witnessed such flagrant consumption of energy for reasons that are purely comfort.
I'll give a few examples.
- Air conditioning cranked up so high that shops are actually COLD. There's just no need.
- my own relatives going out for the day and leaving the aircon running, the lights on, the windows open, AND the radio playing ALL DAY while they aren't even there, so that it's on already when they get home and they don't have to walk the 20 feet to put it on.
- your public transport sucks so you drive everywhere.
- not only that but you do it in vastly uneconomical cars (SUVs for example) which get maybe 12 miles to the gallon.
- using 19 napkins when one will do.

This isn't always entirely true.

....

I think you representation of people is of small population of Americans and I hope that you discussed this with your relatives and had an impact on their habits.

I have to agree with Sammi here. That is too much of a generalisation.

I have always been lucky enough to live in a place that has one of the best public trans systems, as far as accessiblility goes. Unfortunately I also live in a very low class area where a bunch of disgusting and unclean people live . So it is great that I can take a bus nearly anywhere I want, but do I really want to subject myself to the smell of piss, alcohol, and vomit for however long my trip may be. And NYC is no better (if not a little worse depending on the area). I remember the first time I went down to Washington D.C., I could not believe how clean the subway system was, so shiny and bright and everything seemed to work right How strange.

Of course, I also work about a 25 minute drive away from where I live, but if I took trans out here it would take probably about 2+ hours at the very least, because out here the public transportation is the suck. That is why I drive, and that is something I would never give up. Of course I would love it if my car could be more economical, unfortunately until the gov't (and this isn't just a dig at the Republicans) stops giving into the large corporations that benefit from the system now we will not get decent economical and environmentally friendly cars.

I can compeletly understand Sammi's stance on the AC thing, where I live it does not get that excessively hot like in Texas (atleast not very often). It gets damn hot here too, but not so abusively hot. I grew up without an AC for most of my life. Two years ago was when I got my first real AC, we actually had one a few years back but never used it. I do know people that do use it unnecessarily though. It wouldn't be much of an issue though if people used programmable ones and energy saving ones.

I am a big fan of keeping the lights off, especially since I moved out into my own apt. The only thing in my apartment that stays on almost 24/7 is my computer and the TV and DVD player(s). But, these are the things I use non stop.

The problem I have with the generalisation you used was that it is one that I see way too much from people from other countries. We are viewed as all being brutish, crass, me-me-me, gung ho patriotic imbeciles. And believe me there are a fair number of those asses here, and given the option I would take them out if I could, but we all are in no way like that.

starbug wrote:yeah, I should probably have said I'm the most vocal left-winger...

Mglenn and I had a similar go-around you're having with him now near the start of the war. I'm thoroughly enjoying this though. Its always better to see these views come out in a civilized manner, rather than people shouting at eachother on Fox. Keep it up you two! (Well, EVERYONE actually )

"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."